made a lot of notes on this subject, but I will not refer to them. The Westralian Farmers, Ltd., conduct their business in a businesslike way and with satisfaction to the farmers; therefore, the Farmers' and Settlers' Association have no reason to be objecting to it. In connection with the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., if any profit is made out of their handling charges, it goes back to the farmers.

2324. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : Some of it ?—Every bit of it.

2325. Except the shareholders ?—The shareholders must be farmers under the articles of association. It is not purely a wheat-growers' company; everything goes back to the farmers, the agricultural community. With regard to the original agreement, it was provided that the wheat certificates which were handed to us were not to be transferable except with the consent of the Minister. We object to that, not that we think it was not put in with the best of intentions and may have some merit in it, but it has this effect especially with independent farmers, that they are subject to a control which is not exercised in any other part of their business. They have no right to trade with their certificates or pledge them without the consent of the Minister. If they get that consent the man who buys them cannot deal with them without the consent of the Minister. The result is there are no dealings at all. I have an instance in my mind just now where the absurdity of the position is shown. I am trustee in a farmers' estate which has wheat certificates in a considerable quantity in the first Pool. I am unable to realise on them as an asset of the estate, not because I cannot get the Minister's permission, but because the people who may be buyers will not buy because they would have to get the Minister's permission to go on selling them. Therefore that asset has been in my office considerably over 12 months waiting for the ultimate realisation of that Pool. If I wanted to sell my own certificates no one would buy them, for the reasons I have stated.

2326. By the CHAIRMAN: Then you can deposit your certificate with the bank, which might advance you considerably less than the value of the certificates, on which you would have to pay interest?—Yes, but in speaking of the banks it must be remembered that the position in this State is quite absurd. Here we have farmers who produce wheat by being fed, clothed, and tended. All the certificates are payable at the bank, and if a man has an overdraft or a mortgage his certificates have to be paid and they grab all the money. Country storekeepers will relate for you hundreds of instances of the banks collaring the whole proceeds of the crop, leaving the storekeepers lamenting.

2327. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Does not the farmer nominate the bank?—No. I never nominated my bank, yet they send all my certificates to my bank. That is one of the reasons why the certificates should be made negotiable, so that if a man wants to get stores from the country storekeeper, the storekeeper can say, "Very well, give me some of you certificates as security." Here are the forms they provide for an assignment under the Act of 1916. First of all it is a letter addressed from the farmer to the storekeeper, saying that if they forbear pressing him for immediate payment, he gives them certain certificates. Then an application has to be made to the Minister for Industries by the vendor, and this provides that the amount owing is past due and is approximately the amount of the estimated value of the certificates, and that in the event of there being a surplus it shall be placed in his account. Here is the extraordinary condition: "It is understood that no interest shall be chargeable to me on the amount covered but he estimated value of the certificates." That means, if it means anything at all, that if I owe you £50 and bring you my certificates as security, then as soon as you take those certificates you have to cease charging me interest on the value of those certificates. It is absurd. They are not part and parcel of the security of the community, for no man can make me put in wheat next year if I do not wish to do so. As for growing wheat for profit, I have lost all idea of it. With me it has resolved into a case of how little I can lose. When I put in that wheat I put in so much value in preparing the ground, in super., in horses, in machinery, an din plant, and when I take off my crop it represents the cost of my production. Nobody says how much labour or super. I shall use. But when I have produced the article I am told, "You have no right to sell it, you must put it into the Pool." I am prepared to do that provided that I have some say in the management of the Pool. As it is, I see it going into the Pool, and I see it up the line in stacks on which inches and inches of ran has fallen. You will have before you evidence of wheat getting into the stack wet, which means nothing but weevils. Are we to sit down under this? Wheat is not grown with the object of making political capital. We see this wheat lost and wasted simply through want of thought, of care, and, in many cases, want of knowledge; and we see people in responsible positions getting up and making extravagant statements, not in accordance with fact, and taking credit for a lot of things which they do not do. We say, "Let us remove this from political influence. By all means let the Pools continue, but as a thing apart from politics." When a man like Darling dies worth 2½ millions we realise where that money came from, and we say that money should be in the hands of the farmers. They are not making the money. There are 2,300 farmers under the Industries Assistance Board, practically in white slavery. In regard to the suggestion that the certificates should be made negotiable, we have in a letter under date 15th May, 1916, Mr Colebatch's undertaking on behalf of the Government that the Government have agreed to that. So I need not stress that point further. I do not know why the alteration was not made in the Bill when before Parliament. It is not a very serious matter, because very few farmers are in a position to sell their certificates. The I.A.B. farmers do not even sight their certificates, and the others under the banks or other private institutions by way of mortgage, do not get their certificates; but there are a few farmers who, although on the verge of financial ruin, have still a little bit left, who could negotiate their certificates if permitted. We read in this morning's paper that Mr. Trethowan, chairman of the New South Wales Farmers and Settlers' Association, declared at a conference the existence of rumours that Mr. Hughes had sold the 1917-18 harvest to the British Government at 4s. 9d. Mr Watt, replying to that statement, said he did not think it was correct. Seeing that the British Government have already bought one harvest from us, I fail to see the necessity for keeping things quiet, for keeping any such information from us. I know that in Perth, yesterday, I was asked by a broker if I had any 1917-18 certificates for sale, and so it seems to me there is something going on and that the clever birds are buying up the certificates. If the farmers get control of their own business those secret negotiations are going to stop. If we were a Wheat Board acting for the farmers we would tell the farmers everything we were doing, for there can be no necessity for keeping secret the question of our having the wheat under offer to the British Government. I would like to say something regarding the stacking. You know that Professor Lefroy, one off the greatest entomologists of the day, is in Australia at present in connection with the taking over of the undelivered portion of the Government's purchase. In Sydney, on the 23rd January last, Professor Lefroy said it had been proved to be a fairly simple thing to stack wheat against weevils. He said he would guarantee that wheat could be kept free from weevil for five years if his instructions were carried out. He added that if bulk handling had been established there would have been no trouble with weevils, and some million sterling would have been saved. But Professor Lefroy said that wheat in bags could be kept free from weevil, provided his instructions were followed. The principal thing he laid down was that the wheat should be kept off the ground, I think three sleepers high, and that it should have air passages; and above all, it had to be put in the stack dry and kept dry. Keep wheat dry and weevil will not work in it. It is a peculiar thing that this knowledge was common property long before this last harvest came in, yet we are still going on stacking the wheat just as badly as ever we did. I understand that witnesses will come to you who have worked on the stacks at Midland Junction, where thousands of bags of wheat have gone into the stack in a more or less wet condition, which means weevil for a certainty. Now, to show you that we are not always told the truth, here is another matter: In Mr Sibbald's time there was a